Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Minister for Information and Communication and government spokesperson Krishna Bahadur Mahara has accused main opposition Nepali Congress (NC) of flouting the agreement by continuing to boycott the parliament.

He said that the government has already endorsed the demands made by NC and has also initiated the process of implementation.

“It was agreed that the cabinet would endorse the demands and start implementation. But the NC raised the condition of time-bound implementation and went back to boycotting,” he accused.

The NC is starting parleys with other parties to press the Maoists to ‘stop errant activities.

Former minister and CPN (Maoist) leader Matrika Yadav has warned that he will leave his party and wage a new round of armed struggle if it abandons the Madhesi cause.

The day the party (Maoist party) abandons the Madhesi cause and is no longer generous to the issue of Madhesi liberation will also be my last day in the party," Yadav said at a press meet organised by Maoist-affiliated Revolutionary Journalist Association in Saptari Wednesday, "Then I will raise arms to ensure Madhesi rights."

He added that he has felt a clear discord within the Maoist party in the way of looking at the Madhesi issues, clearly hinting that this may cause the party to betray the Madhesis.

The fiery Maoist central committee leader, who is known for his belligerent remarks and antics that cost him his ministerial position in the past, said that on many instances he has seen his party not being sensitive towards the rights of Madhesis due to which he has given serious thought to raising arms [to ensure Madhesi rights] many times in the past.

Yadav also revealed that the Maoist party has come under the influence of"Feudal and opportunists".

"The feudalists have gained in stature inside the Maoists," Yadav said,"It is becoming very difficult continue to remain in the party because of this."

Yadav also took the opportunity hit at the top Maoist leadership. He said PM Prachanda just sold big dreams to the masses, "but was never able to fulfill it" and accused Dr Baburam Bhattarai of being a "feudalist".Source: Nepal News

Democracy and Class Struggle says there are intensive renewed attempts by the Nepali Congress to bring down the Maoist led Government and divisions within CPN Maoist play into the hands of enemies of Nepalese Revolution like Nepali Congress.

We sympathise with some of the views of Matrika Yadav but not with his divisive public airing of his views and his abusive public attacks on Prachanda and Bhattarai. The CPN Maoist needs centralism as well as democracy and Matrika Yadav's ulltra democracy and lack of centralism is damaging to the unity of CPN Maoist and endangers the Nepalese Revolution..

Monday, December 29, 2008

The Zionist State of Israel, vanguard of imperialism in the Middle East, killed more than 200 people at Gaza. Israeli reprisals against Palestinian people secure for this State a place in history as heir of Nazi Germany. They remember to Italian people’s masses the Nazi slaughters in the occupied country during the Second World War, the slaughters at Marzabotto, at Sant’Anna di Stazzema, at the Ardeatine Graves in Rome, and in hundreds of other places.

Condoleeza Rice blames Hamas for Zionists’ slaughter. So, in Italy, the reactionaries of all kinds have dared to blame Partisans’ Resistance for Nazi slaughters of civilians. If there were not Resistance we should not answer with violence, these worms say.

Leftist intellectuals, as the film maker Spike Lee, tell the same words. He came in Italy for making a film on the slaughter of Sant’Anna di Stazzema, where the Nazis killed 560 men, women and children. He came here to tell that “Partisans were taking refuge in the mountains, and left the population at the mercy of German reprisals”.

Palestinian people’s Resistance is the same Resistance of Italian people against Nazism and Fascism. Both the Resistances are among the most glorious facts in the history of the last century. They express our peoples’ greatness, and show that, against imperialists, Zionists, Nazis, Fascists, war is the necessary answer. Therefore we honour Palestinian fighters, and the people who supports them.

Who carries out politics of extermination against Palestinian people belongs to imperialist bourgeoisie, the class that all over the world carries out this politics of extermination against people’s masses, imposing starvation, misery and war. The ongoing economical crisis undermines imperialist bourgeoisie’s power system everywhere in the world, and this class can only answer increasing and extending such politics of extermination. That is why today at Gaza they do a slaughter as the did not do for fifty years.

We learn from Palestinian people’s Resistance, from their heroism and determination. The imperialist bourgeoisie ruling our countries will not hesitate to use the means that Zionists are using when it will not have any other means for ruling the situation, when it will be no more able to secure the material needs, the rights and the future of the people’s masses. The people masses will rebel, as they do today in Greece, and the bourgeoisie of our country will answer with the repression and the army, as they already did against the people’s masses struggling for defending their health and environment in Naples. In view of it, Palestinian people’s Resistance, that has been able to face Zionists for decades without surrendering, will be a precious example for us.

Palestinian people’s Resistance will win. All over the world, in oppressed and in imperialist countries, the resistance of people’s masses develops and will inflict lethal blows to imperialism and its economical and political system, that is doomed to disappear.

The CARC Party wishes Palestinian people and the peoples of the entire world a new year of victories, a revolutionary year.

Fist of all, integration should be on the basis of the agreement and compromise as before. The integration should be completed in a simple and easier way. The political parties should create a favourable situation for this. Secondly, it is a necessary to explain and analyse the integration of the armies. The meaning and the objectives should be expressed clearly among the people.

Integration doesn’t carry the meaning of reintegration or rehabilitation as the Nepal Congress is explaining it to be. The words reintegration or rehabilitation carries a quite opposite meaning. The integrating of the armies doesn’t mean that one should be assimilated into the other. But, it means that the two armies should be united into making one that represents a unified national army.

So far as the procedures of integration are concerned, the process and procedures are quite different from other countries. The context and the situation are different and the resulting procedures are different. The aspirations and mandate achieved through the People’s War and the 19 day People’s Movement are totally different from the situation and context of other countries. Therefore, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) established by the revolution, here, fought against feudalism and its head, the monarchy. But the Nepal Army (then Royal Nepal Army) fought against the people, against the people’s movements and tried to protect the monarchy and feudalism. This is why Nepal army cannot remain in the same condition as it was. This requires the process of fusion to build a national army. The inner necessity to build a national army is not to keep two armies in one country. The meaning of two armies remaining is that the peace process has not been completed.

So, will the peace process be completed after the integration?

Fusing the two armies doesn’t mean that the PLA should be assimilated into the NA or vice versa. It means transforming both armies. At the same time, it demands to restructure the security sector. It means that the old structure of both the armies will be over. There would not be the old structure of PLA and NA. There would be only one new structure. This will be the only one convincing milestone of new Nepal. It’d be a simple method to achieve a long term peace.

Has the Nepal Congress become a hurdle for the peace process?

Yes, the Nepalese people think so. It is a surprising thing why the Nepali Congress doesn’t want the progress of peace process. The Nepal Congress and its leader, GP Koirala, have announced that he is in the process of driving the CPN (Maoist) back toward either the jungle or India. Why is he speaking like this?

He again says that the government should not pay the salaries and other allowances and should send them (the PLA soldiers) back to respective villages. His expressions clearly show that they are in the mood for breaking the peace process and initiate a civil war in the country.

How can you solve the problem then? Can you do it by carrying the debate of integration of Army among the people?

It’s an excellent idea to have a debate on army integration among the people. The people have understood the real essence of the integration issue. The people are the decisive force and they will finalize all those complex issues about Nepal. History tells us the necessity of people to raise the People’s Movement and fight the People’s War. The debate will not be enough if things are understood only by the leaders and the political parties. The people should be directly involved in the debate on the integration of the two armies to carry it to the logical end. The environment is favourable for a mass discussion and the people should be at front line of this historical discussion.

Are you certain that the people will get involved in a debate about army integration?

Yes, why not? The people are in favour of peace and security. The people are in favour of army integration. They are expecting to see the national army in near future. The people prefer a logical conclusion of the peace process. The mandate and aspiration of all movements and war by the people is for peace and prosperous Nepal. The people are realising this and expecting the same from the government. The political parties are pouring cold water over the very expectations of the people.

Do you think that only the feudal, compradors and bureaucratic capitalists are against the on going peace process?

Here the class interest plays the main role. In the beginning, they were against it because of their class interest. Now, they are not in the government, however, they are trying to create obstacles in the way. But, the people will make them fail in their efforts for aborting peace process.

How can you bring an end to the current impasse on army integration?

The agreements held before should be implemented honestly. The second is to build the high level commissions for the restructuring of the whole state mechanism. The army should be integrated as soon as possible. The process of army integration should be carried ahead. The government and the political parties should pay their attention for the restructure of security sector. Along with these, the full implementation of Federal Democratic Republic agenda should be implemented while making a new constitution.

What is the real essence of army integration?

An army is built according to the interest of the state power, which has been established on the foundation of the aspirations and the mandate of the people. It is a basic principle. Before the declaration of the Federal Democratic Republic, the feudalistic state power made the army act according to the interests of feudalism. We can read all this in history.

The people raised the flag of liberation for freedom from feudalism. However, after the nineteen days mass movement, the state structure remained the same as it was before. This is why the people have to fight to overthrow the old structure and establish a new one.

Now, the monarchy is abolished and the Federal Democratic Republic has been declared. The government is going to restructure the mechanism of the whole state. In the entire process, there should be the integration of the armies. The national army will be built to protect the Federal Democratic Republic. We are talking about integration as required by the political situation, which has changed with the declaration of the Federal Democratic Republic

Source: Red Star paper of CPN Maoist - there is a link under friends and comrades

Saturday, December 27, 2008

In a bid to end violence in Terai region of Nepal, the Maoist led government today held formal talks with a Madhesi armed group and signed a five point deal to end violence in the region.

The Madhesi group, Samyukta Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (SJTMM), an outfit formed by the former Maoist rebels had launched a violent struggle for greater rights and more autonomy for the Madhesi people.

The Maoists' former deputy commander and Minister for Peace and Reconstruction Janardan Sharma after holding two hour long talks with the Madhesi group in Janakpurdham, a southern Nepal city, described the talks as positive.

The government has signed a five-point agreement SJTMM. Kautilya Sharma, talks coordinator of SJTMM, has expressed hope that the government will be faithful in fulfilling their demands.

Under the agreement the Maoist government has agreed to provide security to members of the underground outfit who are participating in the talks and assurance was given that they be not arrested, and the rebels in turn, have agreed to halt their military action, according to officials.

The government has also agreed to treat the members of the outfit as political prisoners and initiate trial of its cadres put in jails.

The government has been holding talks with a dozen armed groups actively in violent activities in Terai in an attempt to resolve the issue peacefully. The government has recently held talks with another armed group Terai Virus Killer.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The Marxism of the Second International, workerist and Eurocentric, shared with the dominant ideology of the era a linear view of historical progress in which every society must pass first through a stage of capitalist development before being able to aspire to socialism. The idea that the “development” of some societies (the dominant centres) and the “underdevelopment” of others (the dominated peripheries) is an imminent product of the worldwide expansion of capitalism was completely alien.

Understanding the polarization inherent in capitalist globalization is essential for formulating any view about transcending capitalism. This polarization lies behind the possible rallying of large fractions of the popular classes and above all the middle classes (whose development is itself favoured by the position of the centre in the world system) of the dominant countries to social-colonialism. At the same time, it transforms the peripheries into a zone des tempêtes, in a continual natural rebellion against the capitalist world order. Certainly rebellion is not synonymous with revolution, but only with the possibility of revolution. On the other hand, grounds for rejecting the capitalist model are not lacking in the centre of the system, as 1968, among other things, illustrated. Undoubtedly, the formulation of the challenge by the Communist Party of China (CPC), at a given moment, in terms of the country-side encircling the cities, is too extreme to be useful. A global strategy of transition beyond capitalism in the direction of world socialism must articulate the struggles in both the centres and peripheries of the system.

Initially, Lenin kept some distance from the dominant theory of the Second International and successfully led a revolution in the “weak link” (Russia), though always with the conviction that this would be followed by a wave of socialist revolutions in Europe. This was a disappointed hope. Lenin then formulated a view that stressed transforming rebellions in the East into revolutions. The CPC and Mao would systematize this new perspective.

The Russian Revolution had been led by a party firmly entrenched in the working class and radical intelligentsia. Its alliance with the peasantry (represented by the Socialist Revolutionary Party) was naturally vital. The radical agrarian reform that resulted finally satisfied an old dream of the Russian peasantry: to become property owners. But this historical compromise carried the seeds of its own demise: the market produced on its own, as always, growing differentiation within the peasantry (the well-known phenomenon of “kulakization”).

The Chinese Revolution set out from the beginning (or at least from the 1930s) on bases that guaranteed a solid alliance with the poor and middle peasantry. Moreover, the national dimension, the war of resistance against Japanese aggression, also made it possible for the communists to recruit widely from the bourgeois classes that were disappointed by the weaknesses and betrayals of the Kuomintang. The Chinese Revolution consequently produced a new situation, different from that of post-revolutionary Russia. The radical peasant revolution did away with the idea of private property in agrarian land and substituted a guarantee for all peasants of equal access to the land. Up till now this decisive advantage, which is common to no other country except Vietnam, is the major obstacle to a devastating expansion of agrarian capitalism. The debates underway in China revolve, in great part, around this question. But the rallying of numerous bourgeois nationalists to the Communist Party should have an ideological influence that is favourable to supporting the deviations of those whom Mao called “capitalist roaders”.

The post-revolutionary regime in China has to its credit a good many political, cultural, material and economic achievements (industrialization of the country, radicalization of its modern political culture etc.). Maoist China also resolved the “peasant problem” that lay at the centre of the decline of the Empire during two decisive centuries, 1750–1950, as described in my work “The Future of Maoism”. Moreover, Maoist China succeeded in achieving these results by avoiding the most tragic excesses of the Soviet Union: collectivization was not imposed by murderous violence, as was the case with Stalinism; opposition within the Party did not give rise to the institution of terror (Deng Xiaoping was removed, he returned). The objective of relative equality involving not only the distribution of income among peasants and workers but also between them and the ruling strata was pursued tenaciously, with ups and downs. It was formalized in development strategies that clearly contrast with those of the USSR (these choices were formulated in “ten great balances” at the beginning of the 1960s). It was these successes that account for post-Maoist China’s extraordinary growth, beginning in the 1980s. The contrast with India, which has not had a revolution, assumes its full significance here, not only in accounting for the different paths followed during the decades 1950 to 1980 but also for probable future prospects. It is these successes that explain why post-Maoist China, henceforth incorporating its development into the new capitalist globalization has not suffered from destructive shocks similar to those that followed the collapse of the USSR.

The successes of Maoism have not, for all that, definitively settled the question of the long term prospects for socialism. The development strategy of 1950–1980 had exhausted its potential and, among other things, an opening (albeit controlled) was imperative. As the result demonstrated, this involved the risk of reinforcing the tendencies of an evolution in a capitalist direction. Simultaneously, the system of Maoist China combined contradictory tendencies that both strengthened and weakened socialist options.

Conscious of this contradiction, Mao attempted to bend the stick in favour of socialism through the Cultural Revolution (1966 to 1974). An appeal went out to “bombard the headquarters” (the Party’s Central Committee), seat of the bourgeois aspirations of the political class. Mao believed that, to undertake this course of correction, he could rely on the youth (who, among other things, greatly inspired the 1968 events in Europe; see jean Luc Godard’s film “La Chinoise”). The result of these events demonstrated the error of this judgment. The Cultural Revolution came to a close; the partisans of the capitalist path were encouraged to go on the offensive.

The struggle between the long and difficult socialist path and the capitalist option is certainly not over for good. The conflict between capitalism and socialism is the “clash of civilizations” of our time. In this struggle, the Chinese people have some significant assets, which are the heritage of the revolution and of Maoism. These assets exist in various spheres of social life. They are forcefully apparent in the peasantry’s defence of state ownership of agricultural land and guaranteed access to it for all.

Maoism contributed decisively to making an accurate assessment of the issues and the challenges represented by global capitalist expansion. It allowed us to bring into focus the challenge of the contrast between the centre and the periphery immanent to the expansion of capitalism, and then to draw all the lessons that’s this implies for the socialist struggle, in the dominant centres as well as the dominated peripheries. These conclusions have been summarized in a wonderful Chinese-style phrase: “Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution”. Countries, that is, the ruling classes of countries, when they are something other than lackeys, intermediaries for outside forces, devote themselves to enlarging their space for movement. This enables them to manoeuvre in the world system and raise themselves to the position of active participants in the shaping of the world order. Nations, that is, historical blocs of potentially progressive classes want liberation, development and modernization. People, that is, the dominated and exploited classes, aspire to socialism. The phrase allows us to understand the real world in all its complexity and therefore formulate effective strategies for action. It is part of the viewpoint that it is a long – very long – transition from capitalism to world socialism, which breaks with the short transition concept of the Third International.

The Maoist Solution for the Agrarian Question

The agrarian question lies in the heart of decisive choices in Third World countries. An inclusive pattern of development needs an agrarian radical reform, that is a political strategy based on the access to the soil for all peasants (half of humankind). On the opposite, the solutions proposed by the dominant powers –to accelerate the privatization of arable soil, and its transformation into merchandise – lead to massive rural disintegration. The industrial development of the concerned countries being not able to absorb this overabundant manpower, this one crowds together in shantytowns or risks its life trying to escape in dugouts via the Atlantic Ocean.

Access to land is a question of survival for the three billion peasants of Asia, Africa and Latin America, i.e. nearly half of humanity. No form of development is acceptable if it sacrifices the lot of those human beings. Yet, the capitalist path of development, based on private appropriation of land, which is treated as a commodity similar to others, sacrifices precisely the rural population “surplus” on the altar of increase of the “profitability” of the capital invested in agricultural production (modern equipment and “value” of land). The obvious result of this option is the transformation of the planet into one of slums, from Sao Paulo to Mumbai, from Mexico to Bangkok, from Cairo to Casablanca and Johannesburg.

The people’s alternative – that of socialist oriented development – rests on the judicious principle that land is a basic natural resource, and the property of the peoples, particularly the peasantries living off it. The two great Asian revolutions (China and Vietnam) have confirmed the performance of that principle and thereby avoided the uncontrolled rural exodus which has struck at the rest of the three continents. The pursuit of this alternative implies total respect for that principle at all the stages of the long socialist transition. Certainly, the urbanization accompanying a necessary industrialization (even in specific modalities not confined to the unlimited technological imitation of capitalist models, would require a transfer of rural inhabitants to urban centres. But this should be regulated in accordance with the pace of the absorption capacities of productive urban activities; and the formulas of agricultural management should take this into consideration.

There is no question of keeping the “overpopulated” rural areas in immobilism. There could have been mistakes by thinking that an accelerated collectivization, ahead of technological possibilities and requirements, could overcome the related contradiction. Experience has shown that an access to land, guaranteed to the peasantry as a whole in formulas linking small-scale family production with the market, is conducive to a rapid and big increase of agricultural production, in terms of peasant self-consumption rations and commercialized surpluses alike. Continuation of this progress would certainly require the invention of new forms adapted to every stage of the path of socialist oriented development. But, such forms should never be based on any abandonment of the principle of access to land for all to the benefit of eventual illusions about private appropriation of land.

All societies before modern (capitalist) time were peasant societies. Their production was ruled by various specific systems and logics — but not those which rule capitalism in a market society such as the maximization of the return on capital. Modern capitalist agriculture — encompassing both rich, large-scale family farming and agribusiness corporations — is now engaged in a massive attack on Third World peasant production. The green light for this was given at the November 2001 session of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Doha, Qatar.

Capitalist agriculture governed by the principle of return on capital, which is localized almost exclusively in North America, Europe, Australia, and in the Southern Cone of Latin America employs only a few tens of millions of farmers who are no longer peasants. Because of the degree of mechanization and the extensive size of the farms managed by one farmer, their productivity generally ranges between 2 and 4.5 million pounds (1 to 2 million kilograms) of cereals per farmer. In sharp contrast, three billion farmers are engaged in peasant farming. Their farms can be grouped into two distinct sectors, with greatly different scales of production, economic and social characteristics, and levels of efficiency. One sector, able to benefit from the Green Revolution, obtained fertilizers, pesticides, and improved seeds and has some degree of mechanization. The productivity of these peasants ranges between 20,000 and 110,000 pounds (10,000 and 50,000 kilograms) of cereals per year. However, the annual productivity of peasants excluded from new technologies is estimated to be around 2,000 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of cereals per farmer.

Indeed, what would happen if agriculture and food production were treated as any other form of production submitted to the rules of competition? One can imagine that the food brought to market by today’s three billion peasants, after they ensure their own subsistences, would instead be produced by twenty million new modern farmers. The conditions for the success of such an alternative would include the transfer of important pieces of good land to the new agriculturalists (and these lands would have to be taken out of the hands of present peasant societies), capital (to buy supplies and equipment), and access to the consumer markets. Such agriculturalists would indeed compete successfully with the billions of present peasants. But what would happen to those billions of people? Under the circumstances, agreeing to the general principle of competition for agricultural products and foodstuffs, means accepting the elimination of billions of non-competitive producers within the short historic time of a few decades. What will become of these billions of humans beings, the majority of whom are already poorest among the poor, who feed themselves with great difficulty. In fifty years time, industrial development, even in the fanciful hypothesis of a continued growth rate of 7 percent annually, could not absorb even one-third of this reserve.

The major argument presented to legitimate the competition doctrine is that such development did happen in 19th and 20th century Europe and the United States where it produced a modern, wealthy, urban-industrial and post-industrial society with modern agriculture able to feed the nation and even export food. Why should not this pattern be repeated in the contemporary Third World countries? The argument fails to consider two major factors that make the reproduction of the pattern in Third World countries almost impossible. The first is that the European model developed throughout a century and a half along with labour-intensive industrial technologies. Modern technologies use far less labour and the newcomers of the Third World have to adopt them if their industrial exports are to be competitive in global markets. The second is that, during that long transition, Europe benefited from the massive migration of its surplus population to the Americas.

The contention that capitalism has indeed solved the agrarian question in its developed centres has always been accepted by large sections of the Left, an example being Karl Kautsky’s famous book, The Agrarian Question, written before the First World War. Soviet ideology inherited that view and on its basis undertook modernization through the Stalinist collectivization, with poor results. What was always overlooked was that capitalism, while it solved the question in its centres, did it through generating a gigantic agrarian question in the peripheries, which it can only solve through the genocide of half of humankind. Within the Marxist tradition only Maoism understood the magnitude of the challenge. Therefore, those who accused Maoism of a “peasant deviation” show by this very criticism that they lack the analytical capacity to understand imperialist capitalism, which they reduce to an abstract discourse on capitalism in general

Even as CPN (Maoists) faces national and international condemnation for Sunday's violent assault on Himalmedia Publication House by its cadres, the head of the former rebel party's trade union Shalikram Jammarkattel has warned of "bigger attacks" against the same media in future if the "peaceful demands" to re-instate workers are not fulfilled.

In an interview with Avenues TV's news based program Khabar Vitra ko Khabar Tuesday, Jammarkattel, who is also a Maoist lawmaker, accused Himalmedia of having flouted "the orders" of both the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Labour to fulfill the "peaceful demands" for the re-instatement of two marketing staff, who he said were Maoist union leaders at Himalmedia.

Both labour and communications ministries are run by Maoist ministers.

Contrary to reports which said that workers associated with Maoists had attacked the offices and personnel of Himalmedia, Jammarkattel claimed that it was infact Himalmedia journalists and staff who started attacking his "laborer friends" when they went there for a meeting on Sunday and were injured in the process. He said after being attacked they had no choice but to fight back for their own safety.

Interestingly, the cover story published in the latest issue of Himal Khabarpatrika, which is believed to have sparked the attack on Himalmedia, is very critical of Jamarkattel. The story claims Jammarkattel heads the campaign of intimidation against businesses and free press and was involved in “extorting money from businesses, bombing and kidnapping owners who refused” in the past.

Meanwhile, Young Communist League (YCL), which has also been blamed of carrying out concerted attacks on media persons and media houses, has vowed to expose "the ones who have demanded to disband the YCL".

The Maoist-aligned youth wing reached the decision at the end of its two-day long central committee meeting Tuesday and comes at a time when there has been growing pressure from various quarters to disband the youth fronts affiliated to various parties that has increasingly become militant.

On Monday, Prime Minister Prachanda had denied any direct involvement of Maoist party in the assault on Himalmedia and claimed that "some immoral agents" who have "infiltrated" into the Maoist party and ranks were in fact involved it. He has also expressed commitment that the government will probe the incident and take action against those involved in the attack.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

On Friday 19 December the Coordination Councils of occupied schools and faculties organized in the centre of Athens a big concert of support to the rebellious youth, with the participation of many music groups and singers. During hours thousands of people followed the concert, with slogans against the government and the state terror. In Peristeri (the suburb of Athens where the new murderous attempt against the youth took place during the night of 17 December – see 8th Statement) a new march took place with the massive participation of secondary education pupils, teachers and parents.

On Saturday 20 December hundreds of activists “visited” the new Christmas tree in front of the Parliament (the previous one was burned a week ago) and threw many sacks full of garbage on it. The Special Forces attacked the protesters and proceeded to new arrests; the bystanders booed the police and liberated some of the arrested. The Athens’ Christmas tree is now guarded round the time by hundreds of Special Forces and the people of Athens are laughing at the attempt of the government and of the mayor to “recreate the Christmas atmosphere in the centre of the city” – under the protection of the fully armed Special Forces guarding the tree!

On Sunday 21 December many demonstrations took place in neighbourhoods of Athens (Kessariani, Ilio, etc.) and other cities, organized by the forces of the Radical Left, most of them targeting the local police stations. The evening took place in the Parliament the discussion for the national budget. However, the discussion unavoidably focused on the revolt of the youth. The block of “law and order” once more made its appearance: apart the usual government attacks against the youth and the Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA), in this exercised excelled again the extreme right-wing, the “socialist” PASOK and the “communist” KKE. The head of the extreme right-wing party LAOS, Georgios Karatzaferis, congratulated once more KKE for its “responsible attitude and exemplary organization” . The general secretary of KKE, Aleka Papariga, declared that “this is not a revolt; in an authentic popular revolt the masses will not smash even one glass” and once more tried to identify SYRIZA with the “provocateurs” . A leading cadre of PASOK, Theodoros Pagkalos, accused SYRIZA for “leading the phenomena of riots and political vagrancy”.

The head of the Parliamentary Group of the Coalition of Radical Left, Alekos Alavanos, in his combative speech declared: “When a frontal confrontation takes place, each political and social force must choose its camp: either with the system or against it. Today, the government party, the party of LAOS, and KKE are claiming that there is no revolt of the youth, and that all this is a conspiracy organized outside Greece. They remind us of the civil war and the post-civil war years, when the right wing was accusing the communists of been Moscow’s spies. Today, they accuse us even of been common criminals and human traffickers [see statement of KOE about KKE]. They remind us of the Sixties, when the right wing was accusing the girls of the left youth that they were prostitutes trying to attract the decent youth. Today, we heard the general secretary of KKE using the same terms with Ms Bakoyianni, Minister of Foreign Affairs. We heard Mr Karatzaferis congratulating KKE, accusing us of petting the rioters and proposing a new draconian law against the youth. All these are examples of how much the government of Mr Karamanlis is worried. That’s why the government party gets into this alliance with LAOS and KKE. They are all afraid of the near future, of the day when all the working people will rise next to the youth. We, the Coalition of the Radical Left, are warning them: They will not manage to make us retreat. We will not retreat even by one millimetre. We will not sign any declaration of loyalty to the system!”

On Monday 22 December the mobilizations continued on local level, while the Coordinations of university students unions and secondary education pupils prepare a new central demonstration in Athens, on Tuesday 23 December. In Peristeri, groups of young workers and students occupied the town hall, asking for the immediate liberation of the arrested and for the exemplary punishment of the murderers and of all the police members who attack the people.

A senior Maoist leader and ideologue, Mohan Baidya 'Kiran,' has said Nepal will become a 'people's republic' within one and half years.

Mohan Baidya 'Kiran' In an interview with 'Europeko Nepalipatra' www.nepalipatra.com), a weekly newspaper published from London, Baidya said the main question now was how to draft a new constitution. "We have got one and half years available to draft this constitution. First we have to look at this time frame, second the new constitution has to be framed on the basis of the 'tactics' adopted by our party, and the third is all leftist, patriotic and pro-people forces have to unite.

After that, Nepal will become a 'people's republic' within one-and-half-years," said Baidya. Responding to another query, Baidya-known as a hardliner within the Maoists-said his party had earlier given the slogan of 'democratic republic.' "Nepal has already become a (democratic) republic, hence that 'slogan' has become obsolete. Now we have given a new slogan of 'people's republic,'" he said. Baidya further said that though his party was leading a coalition government, it would continue to wage struggles in the street, in the parliament and in the government. "Of them, street agitation should be our main strategy. There are a lot of major issues in the streets including protecting national sovereignty. Border encroachment continues. There have been wrong type of treaties and understandings related to Susta and Kalapani, these should be scrapped," he added. Saying that foreign intervention and interference had intensified in Nepal,

Baidya said a 'nationalist movement' had become necessary to end all sorts of intervention. Baidya said peasants, workers, landless people, former 'kamaiyas,' families of martyrs and those injured during previous movements should all take to the street and pressurise the government. "Similarly, our comrades who are in the Constituent Assembly should also engage in a movement while remaining alert on the issue of writing a new constitution in favour of people," he said. "If we can't launch such a movement, another force will take to the streets tomorrow. If those forces take to the street, they can bring down this government, disturb the drafting of the new constitution and bring anarchy in the country," he warned. "So, we want to move ahead by intervening in all three areas (street, parliament and the government)," he added.

Responding to another question, Mr Baidya said his party was indeed trying to 'finish off' the parliamentary democracy. "The parliamentary system has failed to address the problems being faced by the country. It has failed. There is no future for those who want to go to the parliamentary democracy," he declared. Baidya further said if obstructions were placed in the efforts towards building new Nepal, people will launch a struggle and CPN (Maoist) is the only party that can provide leadership to the (people's) struggle. "Finally, we will be able to build new Nepal," he concluded.

Friday, December 19, 2008

On Wednesday 17 December students of the secondary education and from the universities’ occupations blocked the buildings of the Athens’ Court of Justice in solidarity with the hundreds of arrested youth, demanding their immediate liberation. In the broader area of Athens the youth blocked main avenues and highways. The same day, the Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA) realized a coordinated nation-wide campaign in dozens of neighbourhoods and cities with local demonstrations and other actions, under the general slogan: “Billions for the banks – Bullets for the youth: Let’s throw them down!”. The anger of the youth and of broad popular masses mounts again, as the government and the “justice” are manipulating the evidence, leaking information that the cold blood murder of Alexis was not the result of a premeditated action of the policemen! The previous day, a large group of young activists from SYRIZA went to Acropolis and unfurled two giant banners, calling for Resistance and solidarity demonstrations.

Thursday 18 December was marked by two important events: (1) The huge demonstation of youth, teachers and left organizations in the centre of Athens, where dozens of thousands demonstrated once more against the government of K. Karamanlis. The march was once more brutally attacked by the Special Forces, and 8 demonstrators have been arrested. The combative resistance of the youth continued for hours. Equally large demonstrations took place in many cities all over the country, often marked by clashes with the police. (2) The news about the murderous attack against a group of pupils the previous night in Peristeri, a neighbourhood of Athens. There, an “unknown person” shot twice with a 38mm gun against a dozen of 16 year old pupils who were sitting near their school. The result was that one of the pupils was wounded, fortunately not fatally.

The reaction of the youth and of the Left was immediate. The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) tried to exploit the fact that the wounded is son of one of its cadres, but without (even now!) accusing the government for its anti-youth hysteria and the repeated attacks against the movement. The government tried to minimize the “deplorable incident”, while the police was claiming for hours that it was not a murderous attempt “because the first exams indicate that the gun used was an air popgun”. However the hospital where the wounded was brought for operation announced that the blind wound was provoked by a fire-arm. Later the police confirmed that the bullet came from a 38mm fire-arm.

Already early in the morning of Thursday the Coalition of Radical Left condemned this new murderous attack against the revolt of the youth, underlining that “irrespectively of who is the physical perpetrator of the attack, it is the government who armed him”. The local base group of KOE immediately produced and plastered all over the neighbourhood in hundreds of copies a poster calling for an immediate response of the neighbourhood’ s residents, and took the initiative to call all the local organizations of the Left to co-organize a demonstration the same afternoon. The local members of KOE also distributed in thousands of copies a leaflet calling for immediate response of the people and for intensification of the struggle. The KKE refused and organized its own separate protest, with general slogans in favour of their party, but without anti-government demands. All the other left organizations, with the participation of 1.000 people, marched for hours in Peristeri’s roads, with slogans against the government of murderers and the attempt to terrorize the youth.

The movement prepares a solidarity concert in the centre of Athens tomorrow, Friday 19 December. 750 schools and 180 universities and technical colleges are now under occupation. New protests are under preparation all over Greece, while the government and the mainstream Media hope that the 2-weeks long school and university Christmas holidays (starting tomorrow Friday) will diminish the movement’s combativity. Answering to that, the new youth slogan-warning to the government is “Merry Christmas in the streets”!

For video coverage of Greek Events visit Democracy and Class Struggle Television

Likewise, Netra Bikram Chand will oversee eight of the 14 sister organisations while Barsha Man Pun will look after the rest. Both Chand and Pun are members are the central secretariat.

The secretariat meeting also nominated Post Bahadur Bogati as the chief whip of the party as the then chief whip Dina Nath Sharma has been appointed as party spokesperson.

Earlier this week, the central committee meeting of the party decided to go for 'one person one post' system. As per the CC decision, leaders in the government - except for party chairman Dahal and senior leader and Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai - leaders in the government will have to give up their special responsibilities in the party.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Some years ago when I started to read The Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), I was a bit puzzled by its title. After all, I thought, there are not many workers (proletarians) in Nepal where the great majority of the people are peasants of various kinds. I assumed that the publication was called The Worker because Marxism-Leninism- Maoism holds that in an economically backward, semi-feudal society the proletariat must be the leading element in the struggle against imperialism and feudalism even though they constitute a minority of the population. As a result of my recent visit to Nepal I have come to view the matter somewhat differently.

My experiences in Nepal reminded me of the conception of the proletariat developed by the young Karl Marx during the eighteen forties. It is worth quoting in full a passage from the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844;

“Where is there, then, a real possibility of emancipation in Germany ?

This is our reply. A class must be formed which has radical chains, a class in civil society which is not a class of civil society, a class which is the dissolution of all classes, a sphere of society which has a universal character because its sufferings are universal, and which does not claim a particular redress because the wrong that is done to it is not a particular wrongwrong in general.

There must be formed a sphere of society which claims no traditional status but only a human status, a sphere which is not opposed to particular consequences but is totally opposed to the assumptions of the German political system, a sphere finally which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all the other spheres of society, without therefore emancipating all the other spheres of society, without therefore emancipating all these other spheres, which is, in short, a total loss of humanity and which can only redeem itself by a total redemption of humanity. This dissolution of society, as a particular class, is the proletariat.”

The modern industrial working class had come into existence as a result of capitalist industrialization beginning in the second half of the eighteenth century in Britain followed in the first half of the nineteenth century by the beginnings of capitalist industry in France and Germany . The early working class (industrial proletariat) was very different from its successors in modern Europe today. In origin these workers were peasants who had been driven off the land in the countryside by poverty and capitalist landlords seizing their land. They drifted around seeking paid work and thus became employees in the new and growing factory system. Their traditional rights under a rapidly disintegrating rural, feudal society were being abolished but they had no political rights in the emerging bourgeois parliamentary systems of government.

The point about Marx’s description of the early industrial proletariat is that these were people who have been pushed to the margins of society, whose membership of the emerging capitalist society was weak. Their conditions of work in dangerous factories and their living conditions in filthy slums were such that they were to a considerable extent unable to conform to the norms of behaviour of the wider society, they were in a marginal social position and were literally to a considerable degree dehumanized. Their condition was reflected in the title of an early working class radical newspaper in Britain : Black Dwarf. It referred to the fact that the workers were typically dirty and their growth stunted by poor diet and appalling working conditions.

My first contacts with Nepalese proletarians was with hotel and restaurant workers I met in Kathmandu . I learnt that practically all of them do not originate from this capital city but come from peasant backgrounds in the countryside. They are first generation proletarians who have left their families in the countryside, partly because rural poverty has forced them out. The growing population in the countryside, on a limited amount of arable land with primitive agricultural technology, means that in recent decades millions of Nepali peasants have had to seek a living elsewhere, not just within Nepal but abroad in India and in the Gulf states among other places. In this respect they resemble the dispossessed peasants of Britain two hundred years ago and the peasants of Russia and China in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whose impoverished circumstances in the agricultural countryside forced them to seek a livelihood in the new, growing, urban industrial centres in their countries. Additionally, millions of such people found it necessary to migrate abroad to places such as North America and Australia .

In Europe it was not only economic difficulties in traditional rural economies that stimulated people to move to urban areas or migrate abroad. Also greater knowledge of the world outside their immediate localities, brought about by improved communications, meant that people came to realize that there were different and more attractive ways of life other than those they and their families before them had experienced. In other words, they were attracted by the bright lights of the city. (I realize now, as a result of spending a little time in rural Nepal , that this is literally true. Without effective illumination there is not much one can do during the hours of darkness.) The same is true in Nepal today. In recent decades developments such as new roads, radio and television mean that people in rural areas have become aware of the wider world and have discovered more attractive lifestyles than their traditional agricultural way of life in the countryside. They want to be part of and benefit from the more various and stimulating possibilities in urban areas and foreign countries. They are not simply pushed out of the countryside by poverty but also drawn towards the attractions of the wider world.

Thus in the classical sense of the term the proletariat in Nepal is large, consisting of millions of people. These people have become detached from a traditional feudal way of live while not yet being fully integrated into an urban, capitalist culture. They are relatively detached from the wider society. Their changed social circumstances means that they are open to new ideas and influences. I was impressed by the fact that some of the comrades I met were studying in their spare time, even though they had little of it given long working hours and involvement in political activity. This thirst for knowledge was present among the early proletariat in Britain who set up their own secular Sunday (the only day not worked) schools and set up subscription libraries and discussion groups in public houses. This learning informed the militant struggles to establish trade unions and to secure political representation for the working class.

The fact is that in Nepal today there is a very large proletariat in the classical Marxist sense of the term. These are the people who are leading and pushing forward the revolutionary struggle in that country. The same economic and social processes generating large numbers of proletarians are present in many other less developed, imperialistically dominated countries, e.g. India . This constitutes a potentially explosive revolutionary force, provided that the communists provide correct political leadership, as they have done in Nepal .

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Excerpts from a talk given by David Hoskins at the WWP National Conference, Nov. 15-16.

On Aug. 15 Nepal’s Constituent Assembly elected—with 80 percent of the vote—Maoist party chairman Prachanda as the country’s prime minister.

Prachanda’s election comes after 12 years of intense political struggle. The Maoist party is Nepal’s largest party and is immensely popular with the masses. For more than a decade the party led an armed struggle that toppled the monarchy and led to the creation of a Constituent Assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution.

The Maoists placed first in the April Constituent Assembly elections. The first historic meeting of that assembly culminated in the total abolition of Nepal’s monarchy and the declaration of Nepal as a federal democratic republic.

From 1996 to 2006 the People’s Liberation Army was successful in liberating 80 percent of the countryside. Revolutionaries erected parallel state structures in the liberated zones that provided justice against corrupt landowners through revolutionary courts. They built roads and clean wells for drinking water, and provided healthcare to the poor.

In April 2006 the revolutionaries joined hands with a coalition of parliamentary parties in calling for a countrywide general strike against the ex-king, Gyanendra. The strike was backed by the revolutionary arms of the PLA which had launched a daring offensive across the country—overrunning police posts and army barracks and freeing political prisoners from jails.

As a result, the king restored the parliament, which promptly ordered the arrest of five of Gyanendra’s high-ranking cabinet officials, declared Nepal a secular state, and stripped the monarchy of its control of the armed forces. By June negotiators from the Maoist party and the coalition government had reached an agreement to establish a new interim government and constitution and to hold elections to the Constituent Assembly.

The abolition of Nepal’s 240-year-old monarchy eradicated the political foundation of a brutal caste society that has impoverished the Nepalese masses. Nepal ranks among the 50 poorest countries in the world. Eighty-five percent of the population lives in rural areas without dependable electricity, running water or basic sanitation.

Malnutrition is rampant among children and one-third of the population lives below the official poverty line. Literacy runs a little less than 50 percent and only 35 percent among women. Nepal’s infant mortality rate is 62 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to five deaths per 1,000 in socialist Cuba.

Almost half the country is unemployed. Poor living conditions fueled the militant consciousness of the masses and paved the way for the Maoists to enjoy a mass base of support for the revolution. Even though it is a small, semifeudal, landlocked country of only 29 million, the advances made during 12 years of Nepal’s revolution are quite significant.

The recent political developments in Nepal are a vindication of scientific socialism and the strategy of people’s war. Not since the South African liberation struggle first defeated apartheid and then brought Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to power in 1994, has an armed struggle succeeded in bringing about a political revolution.

Nepal’s Constituent Assembly elections and the Maoists’ first place victory, the abolition of monarchy and establishment of a democratic republic, are the successes of a socialist-led armed political revolution. The Maoists were able to accomplish these goals despite firm support for Nepal’s feudal monarchy by the United States, Britain and India.

Nepal’s revolution is at a sensitive juncture—land reform has yet to be addressed. There is extreme pressure from opposition parties to return all properties seized during the course of the people’s war, and the Maoists are attempting to integrate their people’s army with the former Royal Nepalese Army, potentially leaving the masses defenseless if a royalist counter-revolution is attempted.

Internationally the revolution is isolated—the Soviet Union no longer exists, China no longer actively supports armed revolutionary movements, and Cuba still struggles every day just to defend its 50-year-old socialist revolution. The Maoist leadership is well aware of the obstacles they face and have called upon revolutionary forces worldwide to support the Nepalese revolution.

The state of the revolutionary movement in Asia takes on new significance in light of the recent advances made in Nepal and the rising global capitalist crisis. Merrill Lynch chief, John Thain, recently admitted that emerging markets—like those in the Philippines and India—will not be spared from this crisis since all equity markets are linked, and each individual economy will be affected according to its reliance on global trade and commerce.

As the crisis escalates in these emerging economies, the necessary conditions for the advancement of armed struggle may become more favorable. Dedicated, experienced revolutionaries exist throughout Asia ready to push the struggle forward in such an event.

The revolutionaries in Nepal are making daring contributions to the international socialist revolution. It is our responsibility as U.S. revolutionaries to offer our unconditional support to the Nepalese revolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Kathmandu, Dec 12: Maoist central committee leaders expressed dissatisfaction over the performance of the party while leading the current coalition government.

During the central committee meeting, they stressed on the need to implement the commitments made to the people and improve the performances of the government.

They also expressed dissatisfaction over the delay in army integration process, constitution making process and degrading security situation.

Talking to reporters, the leaders said that speakers also demanded for consolidated thought on leadership and unity to effectively implement the strategies set by the national gathering of party cadres recently.

Prime Minister Prachanda reassured the leaders to improve the performance of the government in the coming days, Nepalnews reported

Thursday, December 11, 2008

NEPAL: Nepal’s Maoists say the global financial crisis is a sign capitalism is failing and warn that if the turmoil goes on for long, “imperialist” powers may turn to war.

The Maoists, elected to rule the Himalayan nation nestled between India and China after fighting a decade-long armed struggle to install a communist republic, say they are unsurprised by the financial turmoil. “What’s happening is a long-brewing crisis within the whole monopoly capitalist system. This is nothing surprising,” Nepal’s Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai told AFP in an interview on Sunday.

“Monopoly capitalism is not sustainable as it leads to unequal development,” said the 54-year-old architectural engineer who, until a 2006 peace deal, was a rebel with a price on his head.

“Capitalism is failing” and now is a “very ailing patient”, said Bhattarai.

“If this crisis continues —- if there’s no socialist alternative offered — then in the long term, the imperialist masters will resort to war,” Bhattarai said.

“The second world war was the result of economic crisis,” he asserted, noting the economic depression that preceded the conflict.

Luckily, the moustachioed Maoist said, Nepal has “very few links with the global economy and the whole imperialist system” and appears to have escaped so far the impact of the global turmoil. Nepal is one of the world’s poorest countries where around 80 percent of people depend on agriculture for a living.

“Our backwardness is an advantage,” said Bhattarai, who has promised radical reforms in aid-dependent Nepal where a Maoist-dominated assembly voted to end the world’s last Hindu monarchy in May.

However, he was not so sure the country would be so fortunate in coming months.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

The government has formed high-level Land Reform Commission headed by Haribol Gajurel, a Maoist leader.

A meeting of the Council of Ministers today decided to form the seven-member commission.

According to government spokesperson and communication minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara, the coalition partners will have one member each in the commission and one member will be from the National Land Rights Forum, which had staged days of protest in Kathmandu demanding a high-level commission to address the problems of landless people

Monday, December 8, 2008

Very recently, the CPN Maoist has declared its tactics as People’s Federal Democratic National Republic. The two documents in the national convention had two different tactics: People’s Republic or transitonal or democratic republic. Anyway, these issues have been already resolved with highest consideration from an ideological prospective. The new slogans of CPN-Maoist will be to make a new national army, to write a new pro-people consitution and self-dependent economy or economic development. Before this, one of the conclusions of the debate was on contemporary politics. I would like to analyse this chapter on a practicle and theoritical basis.

The term “People’s Republic” is receiving a high profile. After the result of the election of the Constituent Assembly, the Chairman and Prime Minister Com.Prachanda announced from an open platform that if any political parties hesitated to declare a democratic republic by abolishing the monarchy, the CPN-Maoist would declare People’s Republic. At that time, Chairman Prachanda said if the Nepali Congress and UML were not ready to act it, the people would declare a Peoples Republic. If that had happened, where would the spacebe for them? We can say nothing now. This is a clear massage to the people and other political parties that the Maoist is not going to wait for a long time. They are ready to declare People’s Republic as soon as possible.

Secondly, the Maoist party and its leaders spoke on the Peoples Republic as an ultimate goal of CPN-Maoist. The Nepali Congress is in the opposition now. Being in opposition, the Nepali Congress has accused the CPN-Maoist of advancing without any clear understanding or agreement held before. The NC is criticizing CPN-Maoist like the commoners in the open market. Why are the Nepali Congress and UML afraid of People’s Republic? What does it mean? First, we must know about it.

First of all, a People’s Republic means a republican system for the people by the people and of the people. If it is for the people, then why we should be afraid of it? If any one is in favor of the people, there is no reason to oppose it. Those who are in opposition to the People’s Republic may be confused; they have no knowledge about it. If they are not in favor of the People’s Republic, then they want to establish a feudal-bourgeoisie republic.

Second, we have declared a republic but we haven’t named it yet. Whether it is a People’s Republic or a Bihari republic, we have to make it. Some people want to make it a Bihari republic. For this, most of the feudal and comprador burocratic capitalists are struggling. The masses of the people are in favour of the People’s Republic. Therefore, it is a suitable and better debate; but it should be in a fair manner. Especially feudal, comprador and bureaucratic capitalists are afraid of it because they want to save their interest by making a Bihari Republic instead of a People’s Republic.

Third, the People’s Republic is not a strange matter which is against the people’s interest; but some who are entirely against the people, they will be afraid of it.

Fourth, the aim of any Communist party is a People’s Republic. There is no doubt on this. The CPN-Maoist aim is to achieve the People’s Republic. Even the CPN-UML and other communist parties also have the same goal. However, the astonishing thing is the UML are against it. This is a very important question.

Fifth, there is no doubt that the goal of CPN-Maoist is the People’s Republic like other Communist parties. But the fact is we have to know is we have just been able to declare the republic successfully. We have to consolidate and institutioanalize it on the basis of a democratic republic and then march forward to a Peoples Republic.

Debate has taken place knowingly or unknowingly. However, it is the result of the objective situation. The People’s Republic is not an agenda against the people. It is in favor of the people, although the reactionaries are provoking people against their own interests of a People’s Republic. Therefore, people should know the fact in time and they should be aware about what is right and what is wrong.

Some of them are trying to highlight the propaganda that the People’s Republic is a single Communist party dictatorship. This type of understanding is completely wrong. If any one has any confusion about it, we suggest they study the documents of the CPN-Maoist. The CPN-Maoist has already taken the decision of multy party competition, there is no doubt in it. The CPN-Maoist has reviewed the whole communist history, especially the history of the 20th century. The first half of the 20th century was favourable to Communist states; but the last half of the 20th century was against communism and they lost their power. Except the CPN-Maoist, the Communist parties have not reviewed it After reviewing history, the CPN-Maoist declared some of the mistakes in the historic Communist movement; that is the lack of multiparty competition in the state under proletarian dictatorship. Therefore, the CPN-Maoist has learnt the lesson from history and is trying to correct it.

If capitalist revolution had been completed by the Nepali Congress and other capitalists parties before, the CPN-Maoist would have engaged with the socialist revolution. But capitalist parties always compromised with the feudal monarchy. Therefore, the CPN-Maoist engaged in capitalist revolution against feudal monarchy. After the consolidation of democratic republic, which is purely capitalistic, the party will go in the direction of a People’s Republic by the way of socialism.

In conclusion, we should not be afraid of the Maoist version and vision. The Maoist vision is certainly pro-people. At first, they may be afraid of it; after a while they will get used to it; then they will love it. At the beginning of the peace process, the issues of the election of the Constituent Assembly, republic, federalism, state restructuring and military integration were the same as the issue of People’s Republic. Now, we are in the phase of consolidation of democratic republic. On the basis of correct tactics, we can have a People’s Republic.

Q: Thank you very much Comrade Gaurav for agreeing to this interview with us. As you are aware, we are planning to launch an internet debate on the revolution in Nepal and we hope this interview will help. For this we have a few questions we hope you can enlighten us about. The first question is, could you describe the current overall situation in Nepal ?

A: The current political situation in Nepal can be described as having two aspects. We can say it is a good opportunity, not only for the revolution in Nepal but also as an inspiration for the world proletarian revolution. But there are also big challenges, and it is natural that big opportunities are accompanied by big challenges. The political situation in Nepal is therefore facing these two different aspects; big opportunities and big challenges. The big opportunities are that there are good possibilities that we can accomplish the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal .

To make revolution at this juncture of world history is a really difficult task. We don’t have a socialist base to support the revolution from outside, we don’t have socialist countries for support and we don’t have a strong working class movement anywhere in the world in support of the revolution taking place in our country. So to be based mainly on the people of our own country and accomplishing the revolution is a really challenging task. But still we hope we will be able to accomplish the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal , that it will be the first successful revolution led by a Maoist party in the 21st century. So I like to describe it as a good opportunity. But we also have big challenges. Our enemies know that the revolution is near the concluding stage and they are trying to prevent our victory in different ways. They are using all their experience of sabotaging revolution that they have achieved throughout history, and they are trying all of the experiences of counter-revolution in Nepal .

That we can also understand. There are challenges from outside. Furthermore, definitely, we have entered into the process of negotiation, and we are also in the government, we are leading the government, which is a new experiment in the entire history of the International Communist Movement, for radical Marxists or radical Maoists. So from the inside there is also a challenge, because there is a risk of the party being influenced by some bad ideas, and the party taking a different course. That is a big challenge from the inside. This is the situation in Nepal today.

Q: I think in the Second Conference, the Party identified the King as the principal enemy of the Nepalese revolution. This led to the tactic of Constituent Assembly and coalition government, which under the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN[M]) has successfully been accomplished, the monarchy has been overthrown, and a Federal Democratic Republic has been established, and as has been stated, this is a transitional period. Could you please explain how this transitional period is going to develop towards New Democratic Revolution?

A: This is a very significant question in order to understand the revolutionary development in Nepal and how we were able to isolate the monarchy which we considered was the main enemy of the Nepalese people. How we overthrew the monarchy by making an alliance with the forces who were previously supporting the monarchy and fighting against the People’s War. We call this process “success of our tactical line”. It would have been very difficult for our party to lead a successful revolution without making this type of alliance and dividing those forces who were fighting against the People’s War, against the revolution. Therefore we formulated this set of tactics to bring about a split in their ranks, and finally it was possible for us to unite all of the forces through the development of People’s War. It was certainly People’s War that created this situation. Otherwise it could not have been created. The development of People’s War really advanced through leaps and bounds, targeting the monarchy as the immediate enemy of the revolution. Definitely the King who was eventually overthrown wanted to suppress the People’s War, taking the help of the other political parties who were in the parliament. Using those parliamentary political parties he was trying to suppress the People’s War, but he failed to do that, and after wards he thought that only by taking the whole power in his hands could he suppress the People’s War. Therefore, on the one hand the parliamentary parties were trying to fight against the People’s War, and on the other hand they were also struggling for their own political rights which had been seized by the monarchy. This was the situation when the king tried to clear his way by imposing an emergency not only against our party, but also against all the parliamentary parties.

The People’s War had compelled him to seize the whole power, to grab power and impose an emergency, to rule in a dictatorial way. This created differences between the political parties and the King. These were bound to have been created, because of the development of the People’s War this happened, and we seized the opportunity to shake hands with the political parties and say “come on, let’s fight against the common enemy!” We were able to make common cause with the parliamentary parties, and taking advantage of the situation we were able to make certain alliance with them. The advantages were that it had a good effect on the politics of Nepal , there was inspiration amongst the people that all the political parties had made an alliance to overthrow the monarchy. Also, because we had alliance with these political parties, it was very difficult for the outside forces to support the King as these political parties were being supported by India , the US , and the EU in different ways. So the king was really isolated, because of the tactics we formulated during that time, the monarchy was completely isolated and couldn’t even get its traditional support from imperialist countries and expansionists, and so it was bound to fall. Taking advantage of the situation we were able to abolish the monarchy.

We call this a transitional period because after abolishing the monarchy now we are confronted with a situation in which we have to further develop the revolution. We are making use of this situation in order to advance our revolution because our immediate aim is not Federal Democratic Republic. It is New Democratic Revolution. Taking advantage of this situation we have to go further and achieve New Democratic Revolution, so we are defining this situation as a transitional period.

Q: From the Red Star’s articles it seems that there are two approaches to this question, the question of the state, democracy and New Democratic Revolution. One is putting forward the question of status quo and negotiationism and the other is putting forward the question of advancing to New Democratic Revolution. Could you please elaborate on this?

A: Right at this moment different opinions are coming out in the press from the leadership. One reason is that we are unable to make a clear future plan, future tactical line, because this transition period is almost over. As I already explained our tactical line was very successful in overthrowing the monarchy and establishing the republic, and we were able to institutionalise it by electing the first president of the republic. So up to that event our political line and tactical line was very successful.

But now this period has come to an end. We don’t have a new tactical line, a new political line, this has to be developed. Since we have no tactical line, when the press is asking the leadership questions, and the cadres are also asking about our future line, the answers are setting out individual lines, because the party has not yet developed a single line. So the leaders are talking about their own line. They are speaking their own minds and this is reflected in their interviews and their writings everywhere. Definitely as you asked me, some questions and opinions were expressed that reflect two lines, some represent status quoists and some want to advance. This is true. And this is true for every revolution. When you have achieved something in a revolution, because revolution, especially communist revolution, is a long and protracted process, some of our friends feel very tired and they like to take some rest. They say okay, this is a historical achievement, it really is, because the monarchy which was ruling over Nepal for the last 240 years seemed impossible to overthrow just three years back, but now has been overthrown. This is definitely a historical achievement. And these people, these friends say that since we have achieved a historical change, so we have to consolidate it. Consolidate it and let us create a new situation.

Under that new situation we have to think about further developing the revolution but first let us consolidate the achievements. And lets try to win more masses through some radical changes, radical reforms, because we have that opportunity in the Constituent Assembly, so we should carry on the radical reforms and win the hearts and minds of the masses, and then after wards we’ll make the next plan to go further ahead, to develop the revolution, but at present we have to consolidate the achievements. This is one idea. The other idea is that this is a transitional period and the transitional period is soon going to be over. Stepping on these achievements we have to develop the revolution further. Let us step on the achievements and let us develop the revolution further. This is another line, and this is the appropriate time that we should be preparing for the victory of the revolution. We cannot just stop here and consolidate our achievements because the revolutionary situation that exists now will be destroyed. Once we enter into this process of radical reform through the Constituent Assembly, the political situation will definitely change and the revolutionary situation will be lost, and it would be simply impossible for the Maoist revolutionaries to advance the revolution in that situation. So these are the two ideas, two lines actually, existing in our movement, and in our party there are different types of opinion and we hope in the forthcoming Central Committee meeting we will be able to resolve the problem of immediate political line and tactical line and that the party will proceed in its course of developing the revolution. Q: Now the line of advancing the revolution from this transitional period to New Democratic Revolution seems to conform with the revolutionary demands of the Nepalese people.

The period of ten years of People’s War prepared this transitional period, now this political struggle is preparing for the next stage. The question is whether the masses of people are being prepared for this development towards New Democratic Revolution. How is this taking place? A: There are always different sections of the masses. One section is an advanced section, which is always in favour of revolutionary changes and advancing the revolution. There is also a middle section which vacillates between this way or that way. And there is a backward section which would definitely not be happy to carry on the revolution because they think it is enough, the sacrifice is enough, let us stop here and consolidate the achievements. But it is the responsibility of the Maoist party to educate those people properly why the development of the revolution is necessary. Definitely, in Nepal there is one section which is a revolutionary section, which is ready to advance the revolution, and based on that and by educating the other strata we think we can advance the revolution. We, as a Communist Party, are not just worshippers of spontaneity, we will not simply go forward according to people’s level, what the people think, because as communists we have advanced ideology, advanced political thinking, and so it is the responsibility of the Communist Party to lead the masses and not just to follow them from behind. It is our responsibility to lead. We are confident that we will be able to educate the Nepalese masses because the wave of the revolution is still there in our society. We can advance the revolution and we have to decide whether we can do it or not. Whether it is really possible or not. Is it only our empty wish or does it really exist in society? Is it objectively true or not, is our subjective preparation sufficient? I personally feel we can advance the revolution and that the objective and subjective conditions are ripe for advancing the revolution in Nepal . We can do it and we can achieve victory by advancing the revolution. It is not an easygoing process, this is true. None of the revolutions in the world have been easy. There are many difficulties and hardships along the way, and in Nepal too it is a difficult question to accomplish the revolution. But the present situation in Nepal is in favour of developing the revolution.

Q: As you say, the present situation is favourable for developing the revolution. But in the current world situation, because there is no socialist state, one aspect of it is not favourable, and this brings into this question of sustaining power. How do you see that question and how is the CPN(M) grappling with this question?

A: There is no socialist base, socialist bloc or socialist state to support the revolutionary movement. In the absence of this we have to find other forces and be clear about the situation, how we can get outside support, how we can neutralise outside interference. That has to be done consistently by our party, recognising that we don’t have a favourable situation internationally but that we have to make revolution. We have to find other ways so we can continue the revolution specifically in this situation. Now we are thinking that even though we don’t have a socialist bloc there are some other elements that we can make use of. We have to make a revolution in a given situation, we are compelled to carry out the revolution in a given situation, and in that situation you have to develop the revolution. In the present given situation we think we can get outside support from various different forces and we can make use of the different contradictions existing at the world level. For example, there are some Maoist forces, though they are not very strong, but still there are some in the world, and we have to unite with them. Secondly, there are many Marxist-Leninist forces which are not really Maoist but they are broadly leftist, in India and different parts of the world, and we have to take advantage of uniting with them also. Thirdly, there are anti-imperialist forces, which are working and fighting in different ways against imperialism. They are not in state power, but still they are fighting against basically US imperialism in different ways. Fourthly, there are some states who are fighting against US imperialism, and there is scope for us to unite with them or have some relations with them. To develop the revolution we have to unite with broader sections internationally. If we are able to get broad support even though there is no socialist state or strong working class movement, having all these materials around us at the world level will, we hope, create some international support which will help us to advance the revolution in Nepal . Internally we enjoy the support of the broad masses in Nepal and there is no problem with developing the revolution internally. But because the revolution is Nepal is not an isolated event imperialism is very interested in that, and in our case Indian expansionism is very interested in that. In order to counter external interference we have to unite with different kinds of forces, and we have to unite with them at different levels which is what we are doing now. In the span of two years we have been able to develop relations with various different forces and we have been able to establish certain relations with those forces.

With the help of all these pressures we will definitely to a certain extent be able to resist outside interference. Once outside interference is resisted it will not be difficult for us to advance the revolution in Nepal internally. We also have the advantage of being in between two giants, China and India . We have unequal treaties with India , and there has been interference in our internal affairs from India , from a long time back. And we have to develop certain relations with China . Now we have that opportunity because previously China was supporting the King. They were thinking that the monarchy will not be abolished right at this moment, that it would last for a long time. Secondly they were thinking that the monarchy is the pillar of national integrity of Nepal , so they were supportive of the monarchy and now that monarchy doesn’t exist in Nepal . Now they have to find out the reliable pillar, and definitely China will think that the Maoists will be a reliable pillar. They are not trying to recognise us as a fraternal party, because they have already abandoned fraternal relations. Now China has new relations, they define it as party to party relations, and they can begin that relation with any political party, irrespective of ideology, they can develop party to party relations that are nothing to do with ideology and politics. Also imperialists are trying to use Nepal to fight against China , taking the issue of Tibet , they are trying to organise this movement in Nepal , which is a serious concern of China . So utilising many different factors taking place in the world at present we have to resist external interference from imperialism and expansionism and we hope we can do that.

Q: In this complex situation and new situation, considering the class struggle in Nepal and developing the revolution, there are doubts which are natural, and some will look at the whole situation in a negative way. For example some, even communists, Maoists or revolutionaries, they state that the PLA has been inactive, in cantonments, that morale is very low, that the People’s Revolutionary Councils have been dissolved, that the People’s Courts have been dissolved, that the people are demoralised, and that the Young Communist League doesn’t function properly as it should. So the overall image is very negative, but what is the real situation?

A: We have negotiated some things that we think were necessary, because when you are in the process of negotiation it is the law of negotiation that you have to give up something to achieve something. You cannot say everything we have will remain, and we have to only achieve from the other side, this is not a law of any negotiation. When you are in negotiation you have to lose something and you have to gain something. So accordingly definitely we have lost something, but to achieve something more. We think that it was necessary to do that, but the question of dismantling the PLA is a very serious question compared to all the other things. The other side is trying to dismantle the PLA, which is the biggest problem for them but we are trying to sustain the PLA. This struggle is going on, it has not come to an end. Definitely the PLA is confined to the cantonments, but still it is the Maoist army, a recognised Maoist army, and the UN has recognised it as a Maoist army. We have not dismantled it and we will not do that. So as far as the process of integration is concerned it is related to other questions. For example, the other side is demanding, as you have already raised some relevant questions, the issue of the YCL, they want it to be dissolved, but we will not dissolve it, definitely. They want to dismantle the PLA, but we will definitely not do that. They will try to compel us to accept, to make a commitment to Federal Democratic Republic, and that we will not do.

They will insist on us accepting a parliamentary system, and that we will not do. Definitely the other side is trying to compel us, so now we are in a very crucial period. We cannot do both. Up to now, because of the transitional period both these two ways were adjusting in different ways. But now we cannot do that because the transitional period is almost over. We have to confront that there are two ways. On the one hand we will fight for a People’s Republic, and we will make a new constitution on the basis of that. And on the other hand, the other side will win and they will compel us to accept the Democratic Republic, a bourgeois republic. Regarding the question of the integration of the 2 armies, once we have achieved a People’s Republic then the integration of the army will help us in that case, because if it is a People’s Republic it will definitely be led by our Maoist party. When we are able to lead that People’s Republic it means that we will be able to lead the army. If there is integration of the two armies we will be leading the whole army. But if we lose the People’s Republic and the other side win then we will also lose the PLA.

We will lose everything. These questions are thus closely related; whether there will be People’s Republic or simply a Democratic Republic, a bourgeois republic. This is a crucial point, the key point is here, what will the future constitution be? It is not simply a demand from us, now we are going to apply it, we are in that stage, so we are in a crucial period and definitely there are some possibilities that our class will be defeated. There is also real possibility that our class will win. There are possibilities and challenges. So far as our friends from outside are concerned, they like to see everything in black and white, but revolution is not like that, they like to read everything like a textbook, that everything should be written very clearly, like a textbook it is straightforward, but revolution is not like that. In the past it was also like that when we were going through different zigzags, when we were applying different tactics they became confused and they said the Maoist party had become revisionist, or rightist. When we started the People’s War and it developed in leaps and bounds they supported it very much, calling it a big achievement of the proletariat.

But the law of revolution says it is not a straight road. If you study the successful revolutions they have gone through zigzags, it has to do that, revolution is compelled to go through zigzags and different twists and turns. So it is difficult for some of our comrades to understand these twists and turns, they like to see everything very straight. Also they are talking about serious doubts over the development of the revolution. We don’t claim that there is only one possibility, of course there are two different possibilities. Firstly that our class, the proletariat, will win the revolution and everyone will see clearly when we win. And if we are defeated people will see clearly that our side has been defeated. But now before that we are going through different zigzags, different twists and turns, and it is difficult for other people to see from outside clearly what is happening.

This is the situation. But one thing our party is very clear about it, to achieve New Democratic Revolution, socialism, communism, proletarian internationalism, and all this, we should not create doubt about the revolution. That will not help. When we are in the process of the revolution we are going through twists and turns. Our comrades from outside criticise and say that we will be defeated, and we will not win, but criticising from outside will not help to develop that process. First of all there needs to be support, firstly the revolution has to be supported, and then you can criticise when you find that some mistakes have been made. That is the way. Any fraternal parties from outside that fulfil their responsibilities should not just speak as they like. First you support the revolution, then if you find there are some mistakes you can criticise in a friendly way. But if you condemn the revolution, the whole process itself, this will not help.

Q: In this transitional period how does the Party define the class nature of the state and is there party unity over this question?

A: Every state has a class character, but this is a transitional period and we have a coalition government at present. If you try to find the specific class character of the government it actually has no clear class character, because it includes the proletariat, the feudal class and even expansionist forces are in the government. There is therefore no clear class alliance since it is a coalition government. But in the long run the state must have a specific class character, even though sometimes in the transitional phase you will not find a specific class character of the state and government.

Q: Regarding the role of elections, now you have taken part in elections to the Constituent Assembly and according to party documents there will be a role for elections and competition amongst parties during the periods of New Democracy and socialism. But in the past the Party talked of the fusion of People’s War and urban insurrection. Could you explain the particular role of elections in Nepal at the moment and whether some people in the Party think it is possible to utilise these elections to establish a People’s Republic or to take the revolution forward?

A: Definitely we think this election has paved the way for the development of the revolution at the moment. Through the election we have become a legitimate force, even the imperialist forces have to recognise us, because we have been elected by due election process which all of them have recognised. Since we have emerged as a legitimate force it is very difficult for them to attack or suppress us from the outside. They want to abolish that but are unable to do so because we have emerged as a legitimate force. True, by winning the election we have also widened the mass base in Nepalese society, widened support for the Maoists. By winning the election we have opened up a new front. The Constituent Assembly is a new front which is very strong. We are 229 members out of the 601 member Constituent Assembly and we can utilise this front to prepare for the development of the revolution. So there is real possibility in Nepal . This is not a parliament, this is a Constituent Assembly, and we can use this Constituent Assembly to further develop the revolutionary movement, and right at this point of time it may be a legal struggle. We started the struggle in the leadership of this front, and there is real possibility, because we are to write a new constitution and this Constituent Assembly has a decisive role. We are going to write a new constitution by voting in the Constituent Assembly. It has the authority to write a new constitution. If we win in the Constituent Assembly we will be able to write a constitution of a People’s Republic. It is clear that if we go forward in a normal way this is not possible because only our party is in favour of a People’s Republic. The other parties are not in favour of that. So if we proceed normally and with the normal voting in the present Constituent Assembly that will not automatically create a People’s Republic. This is true. So we have to struggle in the Constituent Assembly. It has become an elected body where our struggle has now been concentrated, because it has been authorised by the legitimate voters, the Nepalese people, to write a new constitution. Definitely it has become a new front for struggle which will help us to further advance the revolution.

Q: The CPN(M) doesn’t have an outright majority in the Constituent Assembly and the other parties will all oppose writing a constitution based on a People’s Republic. What would the consequences of that be? How would a constitution come about?

A: According to the interim constitution we cannot write a new constitution by a simple majority. It requires a two-thirds majority and this is very difficult to achieve because we need to unite most of the political parties for that. But we can do it when we will be able to win over the other political parties except for Nepali Congress. This is not easy, even UML will not be ready for that because the imperialists and expansionists will not be simple spectators. They will not say “okay, whatever you have to do you do it, we will do nothing”. They will not do that. They will not allow the Maoists to be a two-thirds majority and write a constitution of a People’s Republic. So for that we have to wage struggles. In the past also we have had the experience that Congress and UML were not ready to write a democratic republic of Nepal . They were not ready. They were saying this question had to be decided by the election of the Constituent Assembly, that it was premature to write all these things, what would the international community say? We are going to hold elections and decide this question if it has been accepted by that vote. The fate of the monarchy would be decided by the election to the Constituent Assembly. They said to us, “the election is yet to take place and now you already declared a republic”. It seemed simply impossible, but that really happened, because we were struggling very hard, not only from the legislature but also from outside. So it is not impossible. If you proceed normally it is not possible. But this is not a normal process; revolution cannot be a normal process. Here lays the question of how to go further. By simply voting we cannot make a People’s Republic. It is not possible. It is not Marxism. We have to struggle very hard for that and as a result of struggle we can achieve our goals. We hope that we can do that because there is real possibility. We are the biggest force, very close to a majority. If we were an insignificant force it would be very difficult to carry on the struggle and achieve that, but we are close to a majority on our own strength, and we have already started this debate in the Constituent Assembly, right from the beginning. We have said that we are for People’s Republic.

Unless there is a People’s Republic the problems of Nepal will not be resolved, there will be no New Nepal. Only a People’s Republic can make a New Nepal. We have already initiated this debate. Now everybody is thinking this is a new thing, we initiated the debate at that time and they are really puzzled. Only through struggle can we achieve it. It is true that with the normal process in the Constituent Assembly of voting there will be no People’s Republic. So we have to wage struggle for that within the Constituent Assembly and also from outside it. We will put pressure on the Constituent Assembly itself. For example, how was it possible to write a republican constitution without holding the election to the Constituent Assembly? The Constituent Assembly was supposed to decide the fate of the monarchy, but it became possible before the election. So it is not easy, but it is possible to go forward.

Q: Could you explain the situation behind the recent resignation of the Minister for Land Reform and Management, Comrade Matrika Yadav?

A: Yes, this is a representative event of what is happening, of what is the present situation in Nepal . We are in the government, we are heading the government, but the fruits of the revolution are going to be snatched away. In the case of Comrade Yadav what happened? We had captured the lands and the property of a member of the royal family and we distributed it among the landless peasants. But the land was still registered in his name, because we could not register it in the name of the peasants. It was still in the name of the landlord. Taking advantage of the new situation, one of the “land mafia” who is with the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), which is one of the partners of our government, purchased the land at a throwaway price. It is rumoured that the real cost of the land, property and house was 180 million rupees, but he purchased it for 40 million rupees. He distributed the land, sold the land in different plots, and he tried to eject the peasants from their land houses. But he could not because it is an area where we are strong. So they called a shutdown in Siraha District and for 14 days they were able to stop things.

The new government decided to use force to evict the peasants because the alliance partners, MJF and also the UML, put pressure on the Prime Minister saying that if these peasants were not evicted from the occupied land they would resign from the government. So they used force. Comrade Yadav was in charge of that area for the party, and he decided to go and lead the protest movement, because the peasants were being evicted by force. 16 police were injured and around two dozen of our comrades were injured, there was a big clash and they evicted the peasants from the land. After that comrade Yadav decided to lead the protest by himself and he went to the spot and organised the cadres, fighters and people and he was able to retake the land and redistribute it again to the peasants. When this all happened there was a demand from the alliance partners that Yadav should make a self-criticism at least, for doing all these things, because he did all these things in the capacity of a cabinet minister, and it is not the responsibility of a cabinet minister to lead the protest and go against the decision of his own government. But instead of resigning, he said he had not made any mistake by leading the protests to safeguard the rights of the peasants, and he would not self-criticise. So he decided that as a minister, and that as he is not allowed to lead the protest or he would have to make a self-criticism, he would resign from that post in order to be free to lead the protest. So he resigned. By doing this he has actually really raised the image of our Party, established the image of the Maoist party amongst the masses.

Q: What is the situation for women in Nepal at the moment? Elections to the Constituent Assembly resulted in a large number of seats for women, especially for the Maoist party. We know that the emancipation of women is an important aspect of the struggle overall, but still there are not very many women who are in high leadership positions in the party. What are the party’s policies for women in this transitional time and what is the party doing about bringing more women into leadership positions?

A: It is true that because of the line of the Party one-third of the members of the Constituent Assembly are women. One-third of the members are women from different political parties. Because of the Maoists all political parties were compelled to give the candidacy of women in the election and we clearly enforced this as a law, it was enacted as a law, that there should be at least 33% representation for women otherwise it would be illegal. It was implemented by the election commission. If there were not 33% representation for women the list was rejected. So naturally women were elected to one-third of the seats in the Constituent Assembly. Everybody knows, even the women of other political parties know that they are in the Constituent Assembly because of the Maoists. And regarding the representation of women in the leadership, definitely we are very careful about that. In the cabinet we also want one-third representation for women. And it should be inclusive, not only women but also Janajatis, indigenous tribal people and Dalits, which are supposed to be untouchable, and everywhere it should be inclusive and proportional. This is our line and we are implementing it everywhere.

Now in the cabinet there are only two women and there should be three, but there is one position left and that portfolio is with the Prime Minister, and we think it should be reserved for a woman. In the leadership including the government we are making it inclusive and proportional. Our basic idea is 40% but for now at least 33% of women should be represented everywhere in the leadership. Therefore, because of our party, all the other parties are compelled to send women’s representative to the Constituent Assembly.

Q: Recently in the news in Britain there have been allegations of underage soldiers in the PLA and a request for the party to make them leave, what is the party’s position on this?

A: We are in the process of negotiation and therefore we have to maintain the standard accepted by the UN in the army, in all armies including the PLA. But so far as this issue is concerned I think it is not true. Our army has already been verified twice. First it was verified and the number of the PLA was 31,000 strong. But in the second verification they reduced the number of the PLA, and disqualified many, and now it is only 19,000 strong. Amongst those disqualified were said to be some underage soldiers. So the question of underage soldiers has already been resolved. This has been carried out by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), the agency doing all these things. It is the verification of UNMIN that has already qualified the 19,000 strong PLA with the proper standards of an army. So I think there is no question of 3000 underage soldiers in the PLA because it has already been verified by UNMIN, not only once but twice! If they find such underage people we are ready to let them leave, but so far as the present situation is concerned we don’t have underage people involved.

Q: The last question is that the revolution in Nepal has, in this world situation, created hope for many people, advanced people and revolutionaries, and now we, like all revolutionaries, would like to learn from the revolution in Nepal . That is why we are following it very closely. At the same time we support the revolution as our important task. Could you please clarify how we could do this better? What do you expect from the revolutionaries outside of Nepal ?

A: The revolution in Nepal is not an isolated revolution. It is part of the world revolution, part of the proletarian world revolution. So it is the responsibility of all proletarian parties, organisations, individuals and left forces to support the revolution from outside. We need support from outside, and from our comrades and friends outside we need some particular support. As I already explained, we have to advance the revolution and it is going to be advanced. The people of Nepal are providing support and are very much involved in the ongoing revolution. It is going to be advanced. But there are outside forces, imperialism and expansionism, who want to upset the process of revolution and interfere in the revolutionary process.

In order to prevent the outside forces from interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal it is thus necessary to create public opinion, mass support, internationally. Where the revolutionary forces, progressive, democratic or left forces exist, I think it is their responsibility to create mass support and put pressure on the outside forces not to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal , because it is the responsibility of the people of Nepal to decide their own fate. Outside forces should not interfere, it is not their country.

If we can prevent this interference from outside then the revolution in Nepal can take its own course. So we hope and we request to the revolutionary forces, revolutionary people from outside, left progressive forces, to create public opinion and to put pressure on the imperialists and other forces that are interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal . This is very significant. By doing this on the one hand you are supporting the revolution in Nepal and on the other hand you are making preparation for revolution in your own society. We think that we deserve support from the revolutionary forces, revolutionary, democratic, leftist and progressive forces, to provide extensive support from outside. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to convey our opinion to the broad masses of Britain and abroad, thank you very much.